Last month, DDOT presented options on the Palisades Trolley Trail that envisions a trail connecting neighborhoods along the Potomac River with Georgetown and with the Capital Crescent Trail. How good those connections will be, and how much the trail will cost, will depend on which options are chosen.

The Palisades Trolley Trail is a proposed path along the long-abandoned trolley bed of the Cabin John Trolley and it has a long history. That trolley once went from the Georgetown Car Barn to Glen Echo and the Cabin John Bridge. After the streetcar ceased operations in 1962 the rail bed sat vacant, but there were initial plans to build a road, the Palisades Parkway, on it. Neighbors started using the ROW to store boats, campers and cars and others used it to dump trash illegally, so the city told Roy O. Chalk, the owner, to do something about it and he built a fence to block local access. Neighbors complained about that too, so the District started making plans to buy it for a trail. By 1976 local planners had penciled in a bike trail on the right-of-way all the way to Glen Echo. A few years later, the District decided they needed the land to build a water main and they planned to build the two projects together. But a 1981 NIMBY operation led to the DC portion of the trail being shelved based on a close neighborhood vote. Despite the setback, District planners continued to include a trail on the ROW in several planning documents over the following 40 years. DC condemned the land in 1982 and bought it in 1983 for $8 million for the water main. The Maryland portion was dropped from planning documents in the recent Montgomery County Bicycle Plan because planners thought it was duplicative of the MacArthur Boulevard bike path, but they still plan a connection from the Capital Crescent Trail to the Brookmont neighborhood.

Map of planned bike routes in 1976

But now, like John Rambo and Emperor Palpatine, the trail is back from the 80's.

WMATA, which got the trestle and other property after requesting guardianship of it from the courts in 1997, recently decided to raze the streetcar trestle over Foundry Branch which has become a hazard and closed the trail underneath it. It is the last of the trestles in DC and the potential loss of it, along with a growing advocacy push for the trail, prompted DDOT to dust off the idea and begin a feasibility study. The Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) denied WMATA a raze permit last fall, which they appealed, and in March the Mayor's Agent issued a continuance on the appeal until October 1st for DDOT to finish their study.

The trail presented at the second public meeting would be an 11' wide trail of various materials running from Georgetown to Galena Place. Most of the trail would have either a crushed gravel surface or a porous pavement, but the short portion east of Foundry Branch would be paved with asphalt. The trail would have the usual amenities but in the area next to the reservoir, where the District owns more land, there would be park-style amenities like benches and gardens. The trail would cost about $4 million not counting bridges ($6-$9 million) a connection to the Capital Crescent Trail (CCT) ($500k) or the Arizona Avenue Bridge project.

At Foundry Branch, they identified four options to get from Foxhall Road to the city. One uses a widened sidewalk along Canal Street and the others use a new bridge over the branch. For those that go over the branch, one ramps down to Canal, another connects to Fowler's Road and a 3rd goes over Fowler's at the old streetcar abutment and then along the land between Canal and the University to connect to Prospect Street. The last option, option 4, is my preferred option (though it's the most expensive and difficult one).

For the Foundry Branch Bridge, there are 4 options. One is to not use it and allow WMATA to raze it. The other three rehabilitate parts and replace others. Costs of the bridge range from $2.1 to $6.3 million. But even the no bridge option costs $1.6-$1.7 million. Other bridges would be needed at Reservoir Road, Clark Place and Maddox Branch, and these would cost ~$2 each.

At Arizona Avenue, new sidewalks, crosswalks and several hundred feet of trail could connect the Palisades Trail at a rebuilt Arizona Avenue Bridge to the CCT for another half million.

There's still a big lift to get this trail built. Agreements are needed with NPS, WMATA, the Army Corps of Engineers and Georgetown University (who reportedly does not want to trail in their front lawn). The trail has to accommodate PEPCO and DC Water. Bridges can't be built on the water main and utilities might need to be moved. There are places where erosion has created steep slopes that will require significant earth work to deal with. The bridge is in bad shape, but parts of it are still good and can hold the weight of the trail. And then of course, there's the money and the raze appeal.

DDOT will work on a Final Design Concept and then in October (after the hold that the Mayor's Agent placed on the raze appeal has expired) they'll issue an Environmental Memorandum Report with a determination of feasibility to be issued in December. I don't know if the plan is to try and push the appeal out until after that or they're willing to take ownership of the trestle at this time or what the plan is, but I hope they have one.

I love the whole thing and think it would be worth it, especially with the CCT connection and the route to Prospect Street, but we'll see.

DDOT is still taking feedback, which can be sent to michael.alvino@dc.gov

The purpose of the proposed project is to provide more direct and safer transportation connections between Canal Road and the Fletcher’s Boathouse, the C&O Canal towpath, and the Capital Crescent Trail. Some of the problems they've identified are that the single-lane entrance isn't safe; the culvert under the canal has a low clearance that doesn't allow for large work trucks, firetrucks, ambulances or river rescue vehicles to pass through, and it is hard for pedestrians or those with ADA needs to get through the area.

They've come up with 4 Alternatives with some sub-options for 5 total different designs, with some similar designs and some differences. All five will build a new motor vehicle entrance and make the existing ramp into a bicycle/pedestrian only entrance. All five build a new bike/ped crossing from the ramp, over the road to the lower parking lot, to the bike/ped bridge over the canal to the towpath and the trail. They all update the culvert bridge over Maddox Branch to the latest standard. But then after that they have various differences.

Alternative 1A

Alternative 1 sends vehicles that can't use the culvert, across the existing bridge over the canal with a modified landing for the bridge. The CCT will then be modified to create ramps up and down to that landing. It uses the existing road culvert (tunnel) for vehicles, pedestrian, and bicycle access between the upper and lower parking lots. It removes the stairs on the river side of the CCT and replaces it with a new ramp for pedestrians, cyclists and emergency and maintenance vehicles.

Alternative 1B

Alternative 1B also sends vehicles that can't use the culvert, across the existing bridge over the canal with a modified landing for the bridge. But then those vehicles would drive down the CCT to a ramp to the lower lot that is further south. It uses the existing road culvert (tunnel) for vehicles, pedestrian, and bicycle access between the upper and lower parking lots.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 also sends vehicles that can't use the culvert, across the existing bridge over the canal with a modified landing for the bridge then down the CCT to a ramp to the lower lot. But then the existing road culvert (tunnel) would become a pedestrian and bicycle only facility. Drivers would get a new bridge over the canal, towpath and trail.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would build the motor vehicle bridge over the canal, towpath trail but it would serve all motor vehicles (keeping the large ones off the trail and existing bridge). The existing road culvert (tunnel) would become a pedestrian and bicycle only facility as in Alternative 2.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would build a bridge over the canal, towpath and trail, but do so farther south. That new bridge would not serve emergency or maintenance vehicles, and they would instead use the existing bridge and a new ramp down to the lower parking lot, as would cyclists and pedestrians. The stairs would be removed, and the existing road culvert (tunnel) would become a pedestrian and bicycle only facility as in Alternative 2. The CCT will, like in 1A, then be modified to create ramps up and down to the new landing.

There are some good things and bad things here. The improved entrance off of Canal Road is a big improvement for vulnerable users, and the possibility of getting exclusive use of the culvert is nice. It will be inconvenient to have vehicles on the trail, but it will be a worthy sacrifice to make sure people get the emergency help they need. The bridge over the trails, and the ramps will be disliked, for good reason, but have small impact.

One opportunity here has to do with the culvert bridge over Maddox Branch. There has often been talk of continuing the Battery Kemble hiking trail under Canal Road through the tunnel Maddox Branch uses, and some have even wanted to use it to connect the Palisades Trolley Trail to the CCT and C&O. If there is any real interest in doing that, then THIS is the opportunity to make it possible. Building the bridge with a plan to accommodate a trail connection will make the whole thing more doable.

A 1976 Washington Post article on the state of bike trails at the time ("New network of bike trails may not find easy rolling", The Washington Post, 22 April 1976, Paul Hodge), and on future plans, shows both how far we've come - Alexandria had one bike trail, less than a mile long - and where we've missed opportunities - one new trail would "go from Georgetown to Glen Echo on the old D.C. Transit Cabin John Trolley line."

The article notes that while the region and nation are in the middle of a bicycle boom, with sales setting records in 1975 and 1976 sales 40% higher than in 1975, local funding for bicycle facilities was cut in both years due to budget shortages.

The article gave NPS credit for the local biking boom by paving the horse trails in Rock Creek Park, leading the effort to build the first section of the Mt. Vernon Trail and closing roads in Rock Creek Park and GW Parkway on the weekends.

The State in 1976

The article claims 120 miles of bike trail built since 1973 (map in 1972 here) at a cost of $2 million, but I'm not sure what they're counting as trails or where that number comes from. The most popular trails in the region were the C&O canal towpath, the "Washington to Mount Vernon Trail" and the "Rock Creek Park Trail". Still the network was disjointed and Fairfax trail planner William Wilkinson said they were mostly used by kids and local commuters.

Also the region was getting jazzed up about the 6,000 bicyclists expected for the Bikecentenial, a cross-country bike ride to celebrate the Bicentennial. The longest bike trails by county were the 7 mile MacArthur Bike Trail and 5.7 mile River Road Trail in Montgomery County; the 4 mile Northeast Branch Park Trail and 2.7 mile Bowie bike path in PG County; the Arlington Boulevard and Four Mile Run trails, both 4 miles long, in Arlington; the gravel trail around Burke Lake in Fairfax and Alexandria had the 1 mile trail mentioned above.

The District had built no trails of its own, but had built ramps to connect to NPS trails. They had just finished a bike plan and planned to spend $660,000 on trail construction over the next two years. Other jurisdictions were planning to spend less. Fairfax, Virginia and Maryland planned to spend nothing.

The 1973 federal highway bill had required states to "consider" bicycle trails in all secondary road projects. That forceful language resulted in a meager $2.8 million in spending on trails over the prior two years. The 1976 act allowed states to spend $2.5 million per year on bike trails with a $45 million national maximum. We've come a long way.

Lots of cities in the area were competing for a demonstration bikeway program, available only for urban areas, that would pay for 80% of bike trails. Arlington was seen as having the best chance with a $1 million plan to connect the Pentagon, around the Cemetery and Roosevelt Island.

Plans

In addition to the Glen Echo trolley trail the article highlights something they were calling the Washington and Old Dominion Trail.

The trolley trail is still just a vision, and a diminished one at that. DC is currently performing a feasibility study on the section in its borders, but Montgomery County recently dropped the section in Maryland from it's plans.

The W&OD trail has been built, but not as imagined. In the 1976 article it was envisioned as going all the way to Bluemont, VA and connecting to the C&O Canal towpath for a 140 mile loop trail with "hostels, picnicking and camping along the way." [Youth Hostels were one of the primary advocates for bicycle trails through the 1970's]. Alas the trail never made it to Bluemont, and I don't know if it ever will - certainly not on the right-of-way.

First of all, Marootian talked about the District's biggest transportation project, the new Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge, which includes several miles of bike facilities.

In 2018, we broke ground on the South Capitol Street Corridor project, which is the largest construction project in the agency’s history. Phase One is the replacement of the 67-year old Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River and includes new pedestrian and bicycle connections. Phase Two includes a new interchange on Suitland Parkway at Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, plus reconstruction and streetscape improvements on South Capitol Street north of the Nationals Ballpark and on New Jersey Avenue north of M Street SE.

He also highlighted a couple of bicycle projects and it's kind of a sad list

We installed five miles of bike lanes and broke ground on the Met Branch Trail Fort Totten extension.

Worse is that DDOT told the BAC they did 3.7 miles of bike lanes. The same thing happened in 2018 when they said in the oversight hearing that they did more than 5 miles of bike lanes, but they told us they did 3.3 miles.

Another thing they talked about was bikeshare

The Capital Bikeshare Program continues to see steady ridership numbers, and, in FY 2018, DDOT added 13 Capital Bikeshare Stations across the District to provide even greater coverage. We also introduced an electric bike pilot deploying 80 e-bikes across the system this year. We have had positive feedback on this pilot and are preparing to announce a significant expansion in the coming months.

Separate from the Capital Bikeshare program, DDOT plans to launch an Adaptive Bikeshare program and will be conducting public outreach through March 2019 to better understand desired locations and times of operation.

DDOT transitioned the dockless program from a demonstration period to an application-based, official permit program in January 2019. The demonstration period allowed DDOT to collect data and better understand potential safety and operational enhancements needed for a longer-term program to be successful. We also realized the need to invest in more bike racks across the District and quickly mobilized a “Rack Attack” to install over 300 bike racks in the last year.

During this time, we also saw the dockless bikes being rapidly supplemented or replaced by dockless scooters. When I testified a year ago, there were no escooters in operation, and, in that time, we have been able to adjust our program to allow for this popular new mobility option. The Bowser Administration’s approach to this program is reflective of the way we view the ever-changing transportation landscape – we are open to innovation and supportive of new types of mobility that reduce dependence on single-occupancy vehicles and will continue to support these changes with pilots that allow for iteration, time for public feedback, and, ultimately, a thoughtful approach that serves the changing needs of a growing District.

And Vision Zero where they have a new Vision Zero division and director.

We also made significant progress on major Vision Zero projects, such as reconstructing the intersection of Benning Road and Minnesota Avenue NE, adding major safety improvements to Ward Circle, and breaking ground on long awaited streetscapes such as 14th Street NW

Vision Zero

DDOT’s top priority is safety, and it is at the center of all the work I have already highlighted today. While safety informs every decision we make, I want to focus on our work toward our Vision Zero goals over the past year. While the Vision Zero initiative aims to improve the safety of all modes of travel, special attention is focused on vulnerable users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. Under the Mayor’s leadership, we have taken a holistic, interagency approach, and we are committed to exploring all options to reach our goal.

In FY 2018 and 2019, DDOT introduced a number of safety initiatives including the elimination of dual turn conflicts, left turn hardening, the targeted prohibition of Right Turn on Red, the formation of the Vision Zero Working Group, the launch of the redesigned Vision Zero website, and the creation of the Vision Zero office at DDOT. We also implemented the Vision Zero rulemaking, which gives the District more tools to reach our goal through a variety of methods, including imposing higher fines for the most dangerous behaviors and creating slow zones near areas such as schools, recreation centers, and seniors centers.

We also look forward to continuing to deliver on our streetscape program, which aims to beautify our city while making it safer. In FY19, we will break ground on the long-awaited Maryland Ave NE project; fix some of our most troubled intersections, like Blair, 4th and Cedar NW; utilize an expedited planning and design process to begin to fix the safety problems along Alabama Avenue SE; and formally look at our options for making Connecticut Avenue safer.

Mary Cheh, before DDOT testified, said that she'd like the District to be more like Barcelona, with more space for bikes and pedestrians and more segregation of users. [If only she had some power to make that happen. Oh well, someday.]

Stop as Yield

"Stop as Yield" came up and Mary Cheh admitted that she already does that most of the time, but wasn't sure about the safety impacts of such a law. She said that she likes the status quo - stopping at stop signs is legally required, but never enforced - and argued that things are "OK now" but changing the law would make things less safe. Cheh seemed to set the standard for Stop as Yield as being something that would make cyclists safer (which in my opinion is the wrong way to look at it). While the BAC supported stop as yield, one resident spoke later against it.

Eastern Downtown Protected Bikeway

The Sierra Club testified in favor or more protected bike lanes and to bemoan the slow pace of bike lane construction, especially protected bike lane construction. They specifically made note of the stalled Eastern Downtown Bike lane project.

After the DDOT testimony, Cheh asked about the Eastern Downtown Bike lanes. Marootian said that it's the kind of project that has lots of challenging back and forth with the community and that it has not stalled, even though it doesn't seem to be progressing. She asked DDOT to be better at communicating about it and the barriers it's facing.

Charles Allen more aggressively pushed Marootian on the project, which goes through his ward. Marootian again didn't commit to a time frame, instead listing all the things that make this project complicated. Allen said that this has been complicated for a long time, but that it feels like we've made zero progress the last few years. He wanted to know how we get to a decision. Marootian then made it clear that the problem is community resistance and said he didn't want this project to get installed and then have to remove it or change it because "the community does not embrace the project". So we're waiting for the community to be comfortable with it. Allen basically says that it's time for the Mayor/DDOT to show some political courage and make a decision. And Allen said something similar to what he said last year, which is that someone will be angry about this either way, so let's just make the best decision and then Allen promised to back them up. Hopefully he won't be saying it again next year.

Striping and Vision Zero

Several people representing community groups, ANCs and organizations like the Sierra Club and WABA showed up to discuss Vision Zero failures ranging from slow repairs and stalled projects, to poor public space permitting and the failure to release required data. WABA said that DDOT is sitting on an infrastructure debt, and that 2019 is the time to start paying that debt down. If nothing else, all the testimony made it clear that the idea that Vision Zero is a goal worth pursuing is permeating the public consciousness.

Allen voiced his frustration over the pace of Vision Zero, and to ask about some specific projects. First he asked about the maintenance of crosswalk and bike lane markings, and the lack of focus on replacing them when they're removed, especially when utilities do work. There's a $1000 fine for not replacing them, why is that not getting it done? Marootian said that striping work is seasonal, weather-dependent work, creating delays. But Allen pushed back on whether or not utility companies are even required to restore markings, because while Marootian says they're supposed to, Allen says they don't - or, at least, that he doesn't see it getting done. Allen was happy to see the hiring of a Vision Zero director and the other steps being taken, but he doesn't see the "big sweeping change" that Vision Zero necessitates.

In between the Advisory Council testimony and DDOT testimony some residents testified against flex posts installed on 21st St. NE and traffic lights that were installed in the same area with inadequate public input. [It's going to be a long tough slog to safer streets if every single safety improvement has to be litigated in full.]

Robert Gardner of WABA started his presentation by discussing crash data and new techniques for tracking "near miss" and then about DPW's statement about enforcing bike lane violations, which WABA found lacking.

Dave Thomas Circle

Conor Shaw from the Eckington Civic Association talked about Dave Thomas Circle*, the need to make it safer and he said that the current plan doesn't give enough consideration to cyclists and pedestrians. Cheh asked Marootian about it, and he agreed that it's a mess and stated that they can't fix it with short term fixes. He then added that fixing it won't be enough without fixing the roads that feed into it, specifically Florida Avenue. Cheh found his answer unsatisfactory, and asked for a timeline. He said they have to evaluate all the options and then listed a bunch of issues that keep DDOT from having a timeline. He hopes to have clarity within the next 6 months.

Foundry Branch Trestle and Palisades Trail

An ANC rep spoke about the public meeting on this, that was then upcoming, and about the lack of communication about it. Cheh used it as an opportunity to talk about an idea to connect Arizona Ave to the Capital Crescent Trail, which she has asked DDOT to do, but which has languished in the planning process. She also said it could keep "high-speed cyclists" on the Capital Crescent Trail, because neighbors have said they don't want them near their homes (eye roll). It sounds like Cheh is trying to offer the Arizona Ave connection as an alternative to the Palisades Trail, even though it wouldn't be. We should do both.

Cheh asked Marootian about the Arizona Ave connection to the CCT, and he said that this was being considered in the Palisades Trolley Trail feasibility study; adding that it includes lots of right-of-way issues and the need for a retaining wall.

Scooters

A representative of Bird showed up to argue that the 10mph speed limit is bad for mobility in DC, and it was interesting to see that WABA now sees itself as the advocacy organization for those who bike and those who scoot. (WABA is also a pretty good advocate for pedestrians, so that's not too surprising).

Cheh asked about the 10mph speed restriction. Marootian said the 10mph limit is the law in the District. [This is incorrect. It is illegal to ride a PMD at a speed faster than 10mph, but the law does not say a PMD must be capped at that speed. In a similar way that you can buy a car that goes 100mph even though you can't legally drive one that fast].

She then asked him if he thinks the speed should be raised, and he said DDOT would like to look at data when they have more, and best practices from elsewhere. Cheh suggested drafting legislation to start the conversation, and that the legislation could also define where scooters could be legally parked.

Metropolitan Branch Trail

A member of the Greater St. Paul Baptist Church on McDonald Place, NE showed up to complain about the Met Branch Trail plan. She noted that while the trail was created in 1989 (not quite accurate), that they just heard about it in 2015, and then by accident (eye roll + deep sigh). Specifically they don't want the trail to go on-street past their church (where it would get a contraflow bike lane), but instead to use the NPS land to the east. While I disagree with their reasons, I agree that the park land would be better. As I understand it the problem is the Park Service doesn't want the trail on their land. I hope they win.

Bike Parking

Allen then asked Marootian about "rack attack" and established that the ~300 new bike racks were the totality of new DDOT-installed bike racks for the year. Then he established that we had more than 300 dockless bikes. So Allen asked if adding 300 racks when we're adding more than 300 bikes is enough to keep up [I'll note that many more than 300 racks were installed because BIDs, developers and others have added to that number, which Marootian also said]. Allen wanted to know what was keeping DDOT from installing more, and if it was budgetary. Marootian said it wasn't but then went to say that it was limited resources, which seemed to imply that he doesn't understand the relationship between budgets and resources.

Bike lanes

Cheh asked Marootian about the overall vision for bicycle lanes in the District. He said that it was MoveDC and he said they were taking steps to update that document (Huh?) based on what they have done so far and where they think they can go next. She then asked him about the mileage done and planned (which might be inflated, see above) and suggested it wasn't aggressive enough. Marootian countered that DDOT is doing a lot and working hard, and is going to get more done this year. "It is as aggressive as we can be". She asked if they were committed to protected bike facilities, and he replied "everywhere we can." She pushed back on that pointing out that DDOT is the arbiter of where they "can".

Connecticut Avenue

Cheh asked about putting bike lanes on Connecticut and Marootian said they were in the procurement process for a study of this, which will be completed this year.

*I love that Dave Thomas Circle has become the unofficial official name for this intersection. I'm not 100% sure where the term came from or who started it, but the earliest reference I know of is this 2005 figure from a DDOT corridor study of New York Avenue, which is used years before it starts showing up in the Washington Post.

DDOT is making plans to rehabilitate or replace the Arizona Avenue pedestrian bridge and ramp and so far it appears that the project has public support. The purpose of the project to provide proper clearance and an all-weather surfaced trail for the full 0.65 mile length of the project. This informal trail is built on the Glen Echo Trolley right-of-way and may become part of a longer, formal trail all the way to Georgetown University.

66% of comments received by DDOT about the project supported some kind of trail improvements while 25% did not. A small majority of residents support some change to the surface (which is now just dirt), whether that be crushed gravel, permeable pavement or gravel.

Trail surface changes are supported more by people who want to a more accessible surface and those from outside the nieghborhood who would like to bike on it. Those who oppose it are almost all residents who want to maintain the natural surface, limit use or who don't want cyclists on it.

It’s scandalous to be spending this sort of money here when so many neighborhoods are hurting, can’t even dream of a trail.Mud is good. Leave the trail as is. We don’t need bicycles speeding on it as we walk dogs and kids play.The Palisades doesn’t need any more hard surfaces, it’s not downtown but a rustic neighborhood.Bikes already have a trail. Save your money for a poor neighborhood!

The positions seem to be

The Palisades is wealthy, has lots of trails and this money would better be spent elsewhere. (I'm sure this will be the same position taken when it is time to hand out funding for schools.)

The trail is perfect as is and these changes will make it worse as they are inappropriate here.

The "poorer neighborhoods" actually have lots of trails. DC has 11 major trails (12 if you count the MVT across Columbia Island). Of those 6 are east of the river - with the Anacostia Riverwalk on both sides. Here's how they break out by ward

So, while Ward 3 does have a lot of trails (all along the edges) the poor neighborhoods are not exactly trail poor. And of the 8 trails in the pipeline [South Capitol - W8, Shepherd Branch - W7&W8, NY Avenue - W5, the rest of the ART - W5, W6, W7&W8, rest of the MBT (W4&W5), extended Oxon Run (W8), Piney Branch (W1) and Palisades (W3)] and the rehab of the Suitland Parkway in Ward 8, most of those are in what we think of as the "poor neighborhoods". The Palisades Trail is the only one in Ward 3.

Not that I think we should be using Ward-parity as a criteria for trails in the first place. This trail will be used, both for recreation and transportation, and that's the most important criteria.

As to the trail being perfect as is, that can be an eye-of-the-beholder issue, but not all agree. Another resident stated "Yes trail – current muddy situation is awful – any new surface would be preferable for strollers, scooters, wheelchairs, walkers, youth bikers." So it may be perfect if you want to walk - sometimes in the mud - alone. But if you want to use a stroller or scooter - it's less than perfect.

I love that on the one hand there is this great concern for the poor people in other parts of the city and how they don't have nice things AND that this is such a nice thing that they wouldn't want more people from other parts of the city coming to use it. It would serve them right if some of the residents from the "poor neighborhoods" started showing up to walk it saying "You know, you're right. This IS perfect. We're coming every day."

Just a few more choice comments:

"The trolley trail should remain a green-way." (unlike the Capital Crescent Trail?)

"The local biking advocate(s) who has been lobbying to "pave the trail" for 3-4 years have recruitedbikers from Maryland and Virginia to attend our neighborhood meetings. (I consider this foul play andunethical.)"

I'm many months behind on this, but last year the MWCOG approved several Transportation Alternatives projects in DC and MD, most of which will be of interest to cyclists.

Under the federal Transportation Alternatives Set Aside (TA Set Aside) Program, the TPB is responsible for selecting projects using sub-allocated funding for Suburban Maryland, Northern Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The TA Set Aside, which is part of the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, was previously known as the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and that name is commonly still used.

The project to get the most funding was the Golden Mile Multi-Modal Access Project in Frederick, MD.

The project will provide 100% design for a shared use path of 1.25 miles along US 40 that improves safety for pedestrians and bicycles.

Next up is the Palisades (Glen Echo) Trolley Trail Preliminary Design project which got $600,000. This funded a feasibility study that is currently underway and is expected to wrap up in August.

The purpose of this feasibility study is to identify critical issues and challenges in developing a multi-use trail for pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and abilities on the former Glen Echo Trolley line corridor, an area commonly referred to as the Palisades Trolley Trail. The project will determine if a trail along the corridor would provide a transportation utility for pedestrians and bicyclists. The feasibility study will include a comprehensive survey of the study area to determine topography, utilities, site conditions, and historic resources. In addition, an in-depth inspection of the Foundry Branch Trestle Bridge will be completed, and options developed to rehabilitate the Bridge for use by bicycles and pedestrians as part of the Palisades Trolley Trail.

A sidewalk along the north side of Forest Glen Road from Woodland Drive to Sligo Creek Parkway will be designed to the level of 35%. The half-mile project will provide a link to a planned tunnel under Georgia Avenue connecting to the Forest Glen Metro Station

Skipping over a Union Station restoration project, the next is phase 2 of Prince George's County Bikeshare program which got $222,000.

With this project, Prince George's County will further expand Capital Bikeshare within the MD 193 corridor.

Back to DC, the Rock Creek Park Military Road Feasibility Study got $200,000.

A feasibility study funded through this grant will evaluate conceptual alignments for the construction of a multi-use trail, which was identified as a priority in the 2016 NPS paved Trails Study and recommend in moveDC. The project will study a length of 1.3 miles between 16th Street and Oregon Avenue.

Another project in DC (they're all in NW, I'm afraid) is the Capital Crescent and C&O Canal - Georgetown Trail Improvements which got $150,000.

Building upon recent improvements, this project will create a new trailhead at the Georgetown connection point of the Capital Crescent Trail and the C&O Canal towpath, two of the most heavily traveled bicycle and pedestrian trail routes in the region. TAP grant funding will be used to fund a suite of improvements including landscaping, planting, lighting, a trailhead meeting area, and an improved staircase.

Finally, there's the Scott/Veirs Drive Shared Use Path in Rockville which got $60,000.

A feasibility study will be developed for a 1.2- mile shared use path along Scott Drive and Veirs Drive, between Wootton Parkway and Glen Mill Road

Has chosen a consultant to create the 100% plans for the Florida Ave NE Streetscape Project (2 nd to H Streets). This project includes a 2-way protected bike lane on the south side of the road.

Will break ground on the Maryland Ave NE Streetscape (2 nd to 14 th Streets) this spring. This project reduces travel lanes from 4 to 3, and includes bike lanes.

Has begun the 30% design for the Pennsylvania Ave NW Streetscape Project (17 th to 22 nd Streets). This will have a protected bikelane on both sides of the road. The preliminary designs are expected by fall.

Back in May, the HPRB rejected WMATA's application, but it can be overruled by the Mayor's agent. At the time the HPRB staff report said that DDOT "agreed to accept the trestle and pay for its adaptive use as a pedestrian/bicycle trail if its forthcoming studydetermines it is feasible to do so" and that "The DDOT study...represents the most credible prospect for restoration of the trestle." They further note that

Demolition has been deemed acceptable by the Mayor’s Agent when determined necessary to construct a project of “special merit.” The few examples where demolition of historic properties was found to be consistent with the Act usually involve properties so compromised that they no longer retain sufficient integrity to convey their historic significance.

But they add that this is not applicable here, because the trestle is not in as bad a condition as reported.

WMATA’s proposal to demolish the trestle is partially based upon a late-2017 inspection which identified three of the twenty-two vertical supports as “severely compromised.” However, this inspection also suggests that the remaining nineteen supports could be repaired while the three most deteriorated elements could potentially be replaced in-kind. Similar approaches, possibly including augmentation with additional structural supports, could also be applied to the main truss and all other deteriorated elements.

And finally, they determined that a raze permit was premature as

Temporary stabilization, or at least postponement of the raze application until DDOT completes its study could ultimately result in a pedestrian/bike trail that provides both historic and transportation benefits.

Which seems very reasonable. And local groups support waiting for the study as well. The Foxhall Community Citizens Association wrote at the time

It is our position that the Foundry Branch Trolley Trestle could be restored and adapted as a bike/walking trail providing our neighborhood with a recreational link to Georgetown and eventually to a river trail. Its restoration and adaptive reuse would create a vital multi-use trail for pedestrians, cyclists, dog-walkers as well as people in wheelchairs and parents with strollers. The benefits of rebuilding the trestle would not only be an homage to our past, but also a bridge to our future, positively impacting the health and fitness of our residents and our quality of life.

Regardless, WMATA is still pushing for the raze permit. In their comments for next week's meeting they make several arguments. They argue that they're a transit agency, given this land by the courts for the purpose of funding buses; but this trestle has no value and in fact would cost millions to restore and since no one will take it off their hands, the best interest of WMATA and the public it serves is to knock it down. Where I would argue with them is that it has no value and would cost millions to restore. We don't know that, but will when the feasibility study is complete. But as for waiting for the study they state that

Denying WMATA’s permit to demolish the trestle in the speculative hope that DDOT someday may find a productive use for and accept title to the trestle properties would impose an unreasonable economic hardship on WMATA.

That's misstating it, I think. Denying it to allow DDOT to complete the feasibility study and then giving them a reasonable amount of time to act on that is what trail advocates are asking for.

Interestingly, WMATA argues that DDOT has given mixed messages on the transfer

Because WMATA’s efforts to give away the trestle properties have been unsuccessful, WMATA is open to paying DDOT, or another party, to accept ownership of them.

In 2017, DDOT suggested that it could fund temporary stabilization or restoration of the trestle despite Jim Sebastian, DDOT’s Associate Director of the Division of Planning and Sustainability, previously explaining that, in DDOT’s opinion, the trestle was not worth restoring. Then, DDOT Chief Project Delivery Officer Sam Zimbabwe proposed an immediate transfer of the trestle properties to DDOT along with an unquantified financial contribution from WMATA....WMATA Managing Director of the Office of Real Estate Nina Albert offered DDOT a contribution from WMATA of approximately $100,000 for DDOT to acquire title to the trestle properties. However, DDOT did not further engage on either proposal despite WMATA follow-up

In late 2017, WMATA—through WMATA Board of Directors Chair and D.C. Councilmember Jack Evans—offered DDOT a quitclaim deed for the trestle properties in exchange for a mere $10, but DDOT refused.54 Instead, DDOT indicated that it intended to complete a feasibility study to determine whether DDOT could utilize the trestle for a valid transportation purpose. In refusing to accept ownership of the trestle properties prior to completing the study, Mr. Zimbabwe explained, “[DDOT] doesn’t want a bridge that needs millions of dollars of work and can’t be a transportation asset. In that case, some other district agency can preserve it or [WMATA] can tear it down/mothball it.”

That makes sense. Why take on the liability? [Interestingly, I was trying to get WMATA to give this land and trestle to DC about a decade ago, when DDOT seemed willing, but WMATA thought they could sell it to Georgetown. Missed opportunities...] Still, a deal now seems possible.

The HPO circulated a draft Programmatic Agreement (“PA”) among NPS, the Federal Highway Administration, DDOT, and WMATA contemplating eventual transfer of the trestle properties to DDOT with a payment from WMATA equal to WMATA’s avoided costs of trestle demolition. On October 1, 2018, WMATA circulated a revised draft PA that would include immediate transfer of the trestle to DDOT accompanied by a potentially higher payment to DDOT toward trestle stabilization, deconstruction, rehabilitation, removal of deconstructed pieces, and/or interpretive signage. DDOT has not responded to either proposal in the many ensuing months.

WMATA has also repeatedly offered to quitclaim the trestle properties to NPS although no formal negotiations have taken place. NPS has not indicated any interest in acquiring the trestle properties while the trestle remains. Similarly, D.C. Water declined to acquire the trestle properties in May 2018.

WMATA also criticizes DDOT for dragging their feet on the feasibility study - which is fair, and not unusual.

Months later, DDOT had not even begun such a study. At an April 11, 2018, meeting between WMATA, DDOT, HPO, and NPS, DDOT stated that it might acquire the trestle properties if a feasibility study indicates that the trestle can be restored and used as part of a future hiker-biker trail that DDOT has not yet planned. DDOT indicated that its study would begin in June 2018 and would take approximately 10 months to complete. DDOT later revised the study’s start date to July 2018. In fact, DDOT did not begin the feasibility study until the week of October 22, 2018. DDOT notified WMATA that the feasibility study likely would be completed in August 2019.

I get that we can't wait forever on this, but perhaps one more year, until the end of 2019 would be prudent.

A trail on the right-of-way makes sense, and the community keeps coming back to the idea of one since at least the 1970's. In 1976, a trail on the right-of-way from Georgetown to Maryland was included on the District's "Long-term Bicycle Transportation Plan".[1] And in 1981, but for an unorthodox and close vote at the Palisades Citizens Association, DC would have built a trail. The idea has found its way into many plans - including MoveDC - since then. And it keeps coming up, because people keep seeing that it makes sense.

The D.C. Historic Preservation office has announced that a public hearing to consider the application to raze the Foundry Branch Trestle between Foxwood and Georgetown will occur on Friday, January 11, 2019, at 9:30 am, at 1100 4th Street SW, Room E200, Washington DC 20024.

The applicant's claim is that failure to approve the raze permit will result in unreasonable economic hardship.

Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANC) are invited to participate in and offer testimony at this hearing. ANC representatives testifying in support of or opposition to the application may simply appear at the hearing and give evidence without filing in advance or requesting party status. Any ANC testimony or statements on this case already submitted to the Historic Preservation Review Board are automatically referred to the Mayor's Agent as part of the case record.

Any affected person or group who wishes to be recognized as a party to the case is required to file a request with the Mayor's Agent no later than Thursday, December 27, 2018. This request shall include all items listed on the enclosed information sheet. Any requests for party status should be sent to the Mayor's Agent by email to historic.oreservation@dc.gov or by mail to 1100 4th Street SW, Suite E650, Washington DC 20024. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Julianna Jackson at 202-442-7631 or iulianna.iackson@dc.gov.

Alan Karnofsky, a candidate for ANC rep for 3D-05, running against Heather Gustafson, originally supported an 8-foot wide crushed stone surface along the trolley trail in the Palisades area, but he has since changed his mind.

I have always been open to the 8 foot crushed stone surface. However, most neighbors I have talked to are not in favor of changing the trail at all at this time and I would have to side with the majority. I know this conversation has been brought up before and it seems a majority do not want it to change.